Re: HOT patch - version 15

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Florian Pflug" <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: HOT patch - version 15
Date: 2007-09-11 07:12:01
Message-ID: 87tzq1llq6.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches


"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> What it sounds is utterly unsafe. You can get away with not WAL-logging
> individual bit flips (that is, hint-bit-setting) because either state of
> the page is valid. If I read this proposal correctly it is to change
> t_ctid without WAL-logging, which means that a partial page write (torn
> page syndrome) could leave the page undetectably corrupted --- t_ctid
> is 6 bytes and could easily cross a hardware sector boundary.

Well we would never be overwriting the blockid, only the posid which is 2
bytes. And the ctid (and posid) should always be 4-byte aligned. So actually
it would never cross a hardware sector boundary.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2007-09-11 07:17:06 Re: invalidly encoded strings
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2007-09-11 06:50:19 Re: HOT patch - version 15